Sections 184e, 1945e and 1945g
These sections eliminate the GPR appropriation for the agricultural chemical cleanup program.
I am vetoing these sections to restore the GPR appropriation because I object to removing the option of GPR funding for this program in the future. This program has historically been partially supported by GPR to reflect the general public benefit associated with cleanups of agricultural chemical spills.
4. Purchase of Development Rights Pilot Program
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.115 (7) (dr)], 184c and 1580p
These provisions provide $500,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 for the Town of Troy in St. Croix County to purchase development rights on agricultural land within the town. Section 1580p also authorizes the town to collect repayments of farmland preservation tax credits on parcels that are rezoned out of exclusive agricultural zoning. These sections sunset one year after the effective date of the budget bill.
I am vetoing these provisions because programs of this kind should be locally based and coordinated with other planning initiatives. The state currently provides several incentives, such as use value assessments, Stewardship Program grants and various tax credits, to local units of government and farmers to retain land in agriculture or open space. Local support and planning processes should determine the creation and focus of any preservation efforts. I also object to authorizing the town to recover farmland preservation tax credit repayments. Allowing local units of government to recover these payments would cause inconsistent treatment of land rezoned out of exclusive agricultural zoning and create an incentive for local units of government to rezone parcels out of agricultural use.
5. Financial Assistance for Paratuberculosis Testing
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.115 (2) (c)] and 1945s
This provision creates an appropriation for financial assistance to farmers for the first herd test for paratuberculosis disease in livestock.
I am partially vetoing section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.115 (2) (c)] to delete the $100,000 GPR appropriation for fiscal year 1999-2000 because it is unnecessary. The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection will need time to develop an application and award process for this funding.
I am partially vetoing section 1945s to remove the reference to providing financial assistance for the first herd test because it is inequitable for farmers that have already tested their herds for paratuberculosis. I request the department in developing the rules for this program to establish a process for providing financial assistance to farmers that have already conducted herd tests.
6. Weights and Measures Enforcement in Certain Towns
Section 1950m
This section expands the definition of municipality for purposes of local weights and measures enforcement to include towns with population above 5,000.
I am vetoing this section because it is excessive. Small towns should not be forced to incur the cost of a weights and measures enforcement program simply because their population exceeds 5,000. However, I do recognize equity issues concerning weights and measures enforcement in certain urban towns and request the Legislature to enact separate legislation to address those specific issues.
7. Telecommunications Complaint Reporting Requirements
Sections 1930r, 9104 (1m), 9130 (2m), 9141 (5m) and 9404 (2m)
These sections require the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to annually report on telecommunication services complaints to the Legislature. These sections also require the department to establish a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Justice and the Public Service Commission concerning coordination of each agency’s efforts to address consumer complaints regarding telecommunication services.
I am vetoing these sections because they are excessive and unnecessary. The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection continues to diligently pursue all consumer complaint issues, including those related to telecommunication services. The department has sought to work closely with the Department of Justice concerning legal action against violators and has engaged the Public Service Commission in cooperative efforts concerning enforcement of consumer protection laws related to telecommunication services. Reports regarding coordination of effort and volume of complaints can be provided without directives from the Legislature.
8. Federal Funding for Agricultural Export Marketing
Section 1930j
This section requires the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to seek a certain level of federal funding for agricultural export marketing each year.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. The department is continually seeking federal funds to assist Wisconsin’s agriculture industry in marketing its products nationally and internationally.
COMMERCE
9. PECFA – Deductibles
Sections 1991c, 1992c and 1993f
These sections change the current deductible for owners of underground storage tanks that handle more than 10,000 gallons per month from $2,500 plus 5% of eligible costs with a maximum deductible of $7,500, to $3,000 for eligible costs up to $60,000 plus 3% of eligible costs exceeding $60,000. These sections also change the current deductible for farm tanks to a fixed deductible of $5,000.
I am partially vetoing these sections to establish a deductible of $2,500 plus 5% of eligible costs for both retail and non-retail underground tanks and to return to a maximum $7,500 deductible for farm tanks because PECFA claimants must contribute to the fundamental changes necessary toward making the program solvent. Additional deductibles, cleanup oversight and process changes, risk-based assessment of sites, and state bonding for claims have been the cornerstones of my PECFA reform package. Fully realizing an overhaul of the program requires greater participation by owners in financing cleanups and controlling costs.
My veto retains authority for the Department of Commerce to promulgate rules to address financial hardship by allowing a deductible of $2,500 plus 5% of eligible costs with a maximum deductible of $7,500. I request the department to move quickly to develop these rules and include local governments involved in brownfields redevelopment projects in the class of tank owners that can be considered for a lower deductible.
10. PECFA – Interest Reimbursements
Section 1986e
This section changes the interest rate for reimbursement under the PECFA program from the prime rate plus 1% to a sliding scale based on the applicant’s total gross revenue. The sliding scale ranges from the prime rate plus 1% for an applicant with total gross revenues of less than $5,000,000 to the prime rate minus 4% for an applicant with gross revenues of more than $45,000,000.
I am partially vetoing this section to establish a two-tier reimbursement structure because state taxpayers cannot continue to absorb significant interest cost subsidies to PECFA claimants. For an applicant with gross revenues of less than or equal to $25,000,000 in the previous tax year, interest costs will be reimbursed at the prime rate minus 1%. For an applicant with gross revenues greater than $25,000,000 in the previous tax year, interest costs will be reimbursed at 4%. With limited PECFA funds available to reimburse claims each year, it is appropriate for the state to focus its limited resources on assisting owners and operators of petroleum storage tanks with fewer financial resources in order to ensure loans can be obtained to conduct environmental remediation. Since large companies are often able to self-finance PECFA cleanup costs, a lower interest reimbursement rate for these companies will help the fund remain solvent.
11. PECFA – Site Priority Classification
Section 1995r
This section specifies that a PECFA site is classified as high-risk if it has at least one of the following characteristics: (1) a groundwater enforcement standard exceedence in soil that has a hydraulic conductivity greater than 1 x 10-5 cm/sec; (2) a preventive action limit exceedence in a private or public potable well; (3) a groundwater enforcement standard exceedence exists within 100 feet of a private well or 1,000 feet of a public well; (4) presence of free product; or (5) a groundwater enforcement exceedence exists in a “fractured” bedrock.
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the use of soil hydraulic conductivity as one of the characteristics because it describes the type of soil but not the level of risk at a site. Categorization of sites should be tied as closely to risk as possible. This will ensure that appropriate levels of oversight and effort are given to the cleanup of high-risk sites.
12. PECFA – Risk Based Analysis Rule Deadline
Section 9110 (3yu) (a)
This section requires the Department of Commerce to submit permanent rules specifying a method for determining the level of risk at a particular site by June 1, 2000. The Department of Commerce and the Department of Natural Resources must develop a rule that specifies a method to assess the level of risk at petroleum sites. The goal is to close low-risk sites that pose little or no risk to public health and target limited funds at high-risk sites that pose a danger to public health and the environment.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the June 1, 2000, deadline because it unnecessarily hinders this important process. Given the high level of public interest and the need to ensure that risk-based analysis is consistent with the state’s groundwater protection law, it is important that the departments be given enough time to develop a rule that ensures cost-effective and environmentally responsible cleanups.
13. PECFA – Criteria for Waiver of Site Bidding Process
Section 1983t
This section exempts a PECFA site from the bidding process if either the Departments of Commerce or Natural Resources identifies an emergency situation or contamination at a site that poses an imminent hazard to the public or environment, one department provides notice to the other department, or a site has a groundwater enforcement exceedence within a public utility or a private well. The provision also allows the Departments of Commerce and Natural Resources to disqualify bids that are unreasonable and bidders with poor past performance records.
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the authority to exempt a site from the bidding process due to an emergency or because the site poses an imminent hazard to the public or environment. I object to the provision because the existence of an emergency or imminent hazard should not invalidate the bidding process for a particular site. Often an emergency or imminent hazard is discovered during the site investigation stage and is addressed by the site owner well before the bidding process is initiated. Criteria for cleanup cost reimbursement associated with a specific emergency or an imminent hazard response are specified in the Department of Commerce's administrative rules. Exempting sites because of emergency situations or imminent hazards could allow many sites to be exempted from the bidding process and reduce the program’s ability to realize all cost savings under this process.
14. PECFA – Usual and Customary Costs
Sections 1986m, 1986p, 9110 (3yu) (c) and 9110 (3yx)
These sections require the Department of Commerce to promulgate emergency rules establishing a usual and customary cost schedule by November 1, 1999; prohibit the use of the usual and customary schedule at sites that are bid; require an annual review of the effectiveness of the schedule; and repeal the requirement for the schedule on July 1, 2001.
I am partially vetoing section 9110 (3yu) (c) to eliminate the requirement that the Department of Commerce promulgate an emergency rule by November 1, 1999, because it does not provide sufficient time for the department to develop a rule given the late passage of the budget. I am also partially vetoing sections 1986m and 9110 (3yx) and vetoing section 1986p to eliminate the sunset of the usual and customary costs because these cost control measures, if effective, should be permanent. It does not make sense to require the department to establish a cost schedule and then repeal the requirement at the end of the biennium.
15. Home Heating Oil Tank
Section 1975m
This section exempts a homeowner with an aboveground or underground home heating oil tank with a capacity of less than 1,100 gallons from any administrative rules requiring closure and upgrade requirements and tightness testing on the tank, connected piping or ancillary equipment to prevent an inadvertent release of a stored substance.
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the closure and upgrade exemption because it prevents the Department of Commerce from ordering closures on out-of-service tank systems at residential properties. Out-of-service tanks can be a hazard to public health and the environment and should be properly closed when no longer in service.
16. Private Sewage Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
Sections 2216m, 2217m, 2219m, 2219p, 2221m, 2223m, 2224m, 2228m, 2231m, 2236r, 2237g, 2237i, 9310 (4x) and 9410 (4x)
These sections give the highest priority for private sewage replacement and rehabilitation grants to failing systems that discharge into groundwater or outstanding resource waters of the state.
I am vetoing these sections because the prioritization does not adequately reflect threats to public health. Outstanding resource waters are often located in areas far from significant human habitation and have few, if any, private sewage systems. Since the current highest funding priority category already includes discharge to outstanding resource waters and groundwater, the change in funding categories is not necessary. The current funding priority categories provide the Department of Commerce with sufficient flexibility to respond to public health concerns and should be maintained.
17. Brownfields Grant Program
Sections 195c, 212d, 2937r, 2938c, 2938f, 2939n, 2945m and 9310 (6bn)
These sections expand the Brownfields Grant Program to include assistance for addressing areawide groundwater contamination, require the Department of Commerce to reduce the weight afforded to job creation in the scoring of applications and direct that $1,400,000 be allocated in fiscal year 2000-2001 for awards that do not directly create jobs.
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to shifting the focus of the program away from economic development. I proposed this grant program in the 1997-1999 biennial budget in order to leverage economic development in urban areas and small cities through the remediation and redevelopment of brownfields. My vetoes will retain a requirement to provide at least $400,000 in fiscal year 2000-2001 for applications that are evaluated without consideration to the number of jobs created or retained. This change responds to the department’s efforts to modify the scoring criteria to reflect the indirect job creation and retention benefits of certain brownfields projects. In addition, there are many other programs and liability exemptions that are available to local governments and individuals, including many enacted in this budget, in support of brownfields cleanup and redevelopment efforts that will not have a direct economic impact.
18. Wisconsin Development Fund Earmarks
Sections 196 [as it relates to ss. 560.081 (3) and 560.083], 204, 2937d, 2937f and 2980m
These sections earmark, set aside or require funding through the Wisconsin development fund for financial assistance to the following: Main Street Program communities, public retail markets and the Wisconsin Procurement Institute.
I am partially vetoing sections 196, 204 and 2980m and vetoing sections 2937d and 2937f to delete earmarks for Main Street Program communities and public retail markets and to limit the Wisconsin Procurement Institute earmark to a one-time grant. I object to these earmarks because they are inconsistent with the primary focus of the Wisconsin development fund, compromise the award selection process and limit the Department of Commerce in its efforts to create and retain jobs in Wisconsin. I am retaining the authority for the department to provide a one-time $100,000 grant to the Wisconsin Procurement Institute to reflect the critical need to increase Wisconsin’s meager share of federal aid. Local communities, organizations, businesses and individuals associated with the identified programs can continue to compete for funding through the wide array of economic development assistance offered by the department.
19. Grant for Manufacturing Technology Training Center
Section 9110 (5)
This section allows the Department of Commerce to make a grant of not more than $1,500,000 to a consortium in the Racine-Kenosha area for a manufacturing technology training center.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove references to the amount of the grant because my budget included funding for this important initiative at a level of $1,000,000 and that is an adequate level of funding. The funding was intended to support the efforts of a public-private consortium in Racine and Kenosha counties to build a manufacturing technology training center. I proposed this funding because support for partnerships between education and business are critical to ensuring that Wisconsin workers and students can obtain high skill jobs. As such, I request that the department work with the consortium toward a financial assistance agreement that meets the fundamental goals of my initial proposal.
20. Loan to City Brewery in La Crosse
Section 9110 (7bt)
This section requires the Department of Commerce to make a loan of $1,500,000 to the City Brewery in La Crosse.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the reference to a loan amount of $1,500,000 because it limits the department’s flexibility in reaching a financial agreement with the company. The amount of the loan necessary to support business operations is unknown at this time. As such, I am requesting the department to work with the owners of City Brewery in developing a financial assistance agreement that will ensure job creation and retention in La Crosse.
21. Biotechnology Development Finance Company
Sections 196 [as it relates to s. 560.28 (2) (a)] and 2983c
These sections provide $1,000,000 from the Wisconsin development fund to support the establishment of a biotechnology development finance company.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. Since my budget was introduced over eight months ago, the State of Wisconsin Investment Board has committed $50,000,000 to support the startup of biotechnology ventures. In addition, the certified capital company legislation has been implemented that will make up to $50,000,000 in venture capital available to start-up firms, including emerging biotechnology companies. I have requested the Department of Commerce to spearhead and coordinate efforts to bring these resources and other pools of venture capital together in support of biotechnology business development efforts. In addition, the department expects to commit up to $1,000,000 from the Wisconsin development fund in the form of grants and loans to start-up biotechnology firms.
22. Community Development Block Grant Earmarks
Sections 9110 (7b) and 9110 (8e)
These sections earmark funding from the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for a new water well in Rib Mountain and a domestic violence shelter in Janesville.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to remove the reference to the federal CDBG appropriation because it is inconsistent with federal rules and regulations concerning the awarding of CDBG funding. The state receives funding from the federal government based on a set of goals and objectives. Applications are then solicited from municipalities and awarded based on a competitive scoring process that must conform to federal regulations. Earmarking funds from this program is inconsistent with federal law and risks the loss of federal funding. Nevertheless, both of these are worthy projects. My veto retains the requirement that the Department of Commerce provide funding for these projects through either the CDBG program, if consistent with federal requirements, or another financial assistance program.
23. Grant to CAP Services, Inc.
Section 9110 (7v)
This section directs the Department of Commerce to provide a grant of $25,000 annually in fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 to CAP Services, Inc.
I am partially vetoing this provision to limit the funding requirement to fiscal year 1999-2000 because on-going funding undermines an objective application review process and potentially reduces funding for other projects. Applicants should follow the competitive award process in order to ensure that the highest priorities are met through the most cost-effective means possible.
24. Audit of State Economic Development Strategy
Section 9131 (1x)
This section requests the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to consider requesting the Legislative Audit Bureau conduct a performance evaluation audit of the state’s economic development program.
